Pages

Monday, December 1, 2014

Make an impact this World AIDS Day

Although treatment options have progressed substantially, so that HIV-positive people are now able to live long and healthy lives, it's still important to be knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Here are some things you can do as a pro-life advocate to commemorate World AIDS Day.
  1. Educate your social media network about HIV/AIDS prevention. You're probably used to sharing memes and articles about pregnancy and prenatal development. Take this opportunity to expand beyond that and become a peer educator about sexual health in general. Two links you can share to get you started: 
  2. Get tested. If you're sexually active and/or have had contact with another person's blood, get tested. Get tested even if your sexual partner(s) believe that they are HIV-negative. According to the CDC, one-sixth of HIV-positive Americans are unaware that they carry the virus.
  3. Definitely steer clear of Planned Parenthood, though, and advise your friends to do the same. Not just because they're an abortion business: they've also demonstrated some serious skeeviness when it comes to HIV prevention. They were caught on tape advising someone who wanted an STD test to donate blood instead—horrible advice, for reasons that should be obvious. And a few years ago, Planned Parenthood put out an "educational" pamphlet for HIV-positive people that suggested that it's totally fine to have sex with someone without disclosing your HIV-positive status. Thankfully, Planned Parenthood is not your only option for HIV testing. HIVtest.org is a good place to start, or try your local health department or regular physician.
  4. Donate to an HIV/AIDS charity. Having lived in the D.C. area, which has one of the worst HIV/AIDS rates in the nation, I'm partial to Whitman-Walker Health; they do great work. But there are many, many other great non-profits for you to choose from.

246 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 246 of 246
secularprolife.org said...

Someone over on another site accurately pegged Rosie's idea of "sexually explicit stuff." I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like "If Planned Parenthood's material on contraception is 'sexually explicit,' then books on first aid are clearly horror stories and far too explicit about injuries."

Rosie is just spouting off her version of the Comstock Act.

secularprolife.org said...

I cannot vote for someone who actively promotes abortion.

Please name one candidate, ever, who as "actively promoted abortion," as opposed to promoting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. I'll wait.

secularprolife.org said...

If you looked beyond your bipartisan spectacles you would see that there
ARE candidates who support social safety nets AND oppose abortion.


Libertarians are all about "eff you, I got mine." So, if that's okay with you, rock on.

secularprolife.org said...

most abortion happy president is in power

What an asinine statement. Supporting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions does not make someone "abortion-happy."

Of course, if you were really "pro-life" and not just "pro-embryonic life," you would be raising Cain about how the GOTeabirchers are trying to make it harder for women to access medical care in general ... but hey, women are complicated and you can't just project your emotions onto them the way you can an embyro.

secularprolife.org said...

If one opens a public accommodation (like a bakery, hotel, etc.), one is not permitted to discriminate about who one serves.

secularprolife.org said...

Why would they lie, and why do you ASSUME kids will necessarily have sex

Do you anticipate that your children will spend their lives as virgins?

secularprolife.org said...

I am aware that one is not 'permitted' to do this. I disagree that it should not be 'permitted', assuming that the business is owned by a particular private individual, which would make it that person's property. It is a violation of someone's right to tell them what to do with their private property, whether it is their uterus, their house, or their business.


You're also making the assumption that a 'business' must necessarily take the form you want it to take (or the most usual form), which is pretty much the same reasoning as those opposed to gay marriage, who hold that 'marriage' must take the particular form they want it to take.


The thing is - there is no 'right' to a cake, a grocery store, or any other goodies against the willing consent of the owner. Crying that 'what if it's the only grocery store in town' doesn't change that fact. What if there are NO grocery stores in town? What if I have to travel 50 miles to the nearest grocery store, or grow my own food? Are my rights being violated? When the pilgrims came to the US from Europe, there were no grocery stores or bakeries here. Were their rights being violated?

secularprolife.org said...

Quite the opposite. I do not think I am good at all, that's why I said I WISH I could answer rudely, but unfortunately I cannot due to the way I was raised.

secularprolife.org said...

You mean there are more like you at home? God help us.

secularprolife.org said...

I am pro life so naturally I am pro choice.
If you wish to criminalize abortion, you are pro death.
I do not vote for antichoice candidates whatever their party.
I am a one issue voter = contraception and abortion are human rights.
When the Repub party takes the rape and breeder slavery of American women out of their platform, it may become possible for me to vote Repub.

secularprolife.org said...

It is an absolute deal breaker for me. I will not vote for a Repub as long as rape and slavery of women is in their platform.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't be scared, compared to the likes of you we are definitely a minority, so do not worry; your potty mouth will remain unchallenged.

secularprolife.org said...

You are not aware you are challenging my 'potty mouth?' Dumb and unconscious is a terrible way to go through life. Poor thing.
Clutch your pearls some more. Always entertaining.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, you call this challenge? You have led a very tranquil life so far. This is a mere tickle, not a challenge.

secularprolife.org said...

uh, YES! I expect CHILDREN to remain virgins

secularprolife.org said...

You pro life? Yes, just keep telling it to yourself three times whilst clicking your heels...

secularprolife.org said...

I feel nothing. You are a whackjob pervert on the net. Nickel a dozen. Tell us some more about PP teaching explicit sex to children. That was queer enough to be interesting.

secularprolife.org said...

Read all about it.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health

Summary

In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers
the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual
and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive
health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that
this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal
restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family
planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.
Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often
discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality
goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the
freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in
respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such
laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and
disproportionate.

Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere
with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health
services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only
affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other
legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such
laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be
seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws
and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore
be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

secularprolife.org said...

They most likely wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not a single-issue voter. But so far, the candidates who support things that are the most important to me have been pro-choice without exception. But I also view this issue as a conflict of interest of several parties, the woman, family and the fetus. While I would put the priority of the fetus the lowest because I think it has the least to lose, this is a fairly subjective prioritization, and if someone really truly believes otherwise but they also support exceptions for rape and medical reasons and are also progressive in every single other area, I also don't think he/she would be a totally irrational person. So that is why I say being a (reasonable) pro-life candidate is not a total deal breaker for me.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand. I am female whose bodily audtonomy is at stake. I hear a whisper of ANTI CHOICE and all bets are off, no matter how good the candidate is otherwise.

secularprolife.org said...

Um, sweetie? Your children will not remain virgins forever. At some point, they are likely to have sex. At that point, they need accurate information ... unlike the kind that you allege to have given them.

secularprolife.org said...

And this, madame, is a delightful demonstration of why I detest Libertarianism. Like so many things, it looks great on paper ... but fails to work in the real world.

If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation. It really is very simple. That way, one can discriminate to one's heart's content.

secularprolife.org said...

Am I supposed to be scandalized by all the perversions YOU write? You are not the first letcherous old woman I've come across. I understand your need to be less than polite if your arguments have no basis, though.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that's fresh news alright.....from years ago. I think you are the only one here who thinks that the U.N. being pro abortion is NEWS. It has been known for a while now

secularprolife.org said...

I really hate repeating myself, so maybe you'll stop your nonsense after this. If you open a properly licensed business, you are agreeing to sell to the public. You are offering items (whatever they are) for sale, for a price. If one of the items you offer is wedding cakes, then you bake a wedding cake for anyone who asks for one, and can pay. PERIOD. ONCE AGAIN... if you only wish to bake wedding cakes for heterosexual Christians, then you run a club that serves members only. You can do both. If you do not wish to sell wedding cakes, then you don't offer them. To ANYONE.

secularprolife.org said...

Then why did you ask me a question you already knew the answer to?


It is obvious from this report and others that being pro choice is pro life. And being anti choice is pro death.


I mean, I have lots more sociological scientific proof that pro choice is pro life. Your position has nothing to do with facts or science. Zealots do not do facts.

secularprolife.org said...

You did not answer my question. Tell us more about the perversions PP teaches to children.

secularprolife.org said...

Can you refute the information provided?
Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in child birth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.
The USA is 55th in maternal/infant outcomes among the nations. I certainly hope the ACA is changing that awful statistic.
A full range of gynecologic/obstetric care is a human right.

secularprolife.org said...

**If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation.**

I disagree with your logic, that a baker cannot (according to you) open a store, for purposes of his own determination, to sell to those specific people he wishes to, whether it be 100% of everyone, or 1% of everyone, or any ratio in between, for his own reasons. You are claiming regarding business, what the forced gestationers claim regarding sex, namely that once someone engages in it, they are thereafter subject to a whole package deal of 'consent' determined by others, that they themselves may not wish to consent to.


In your case, you claim opening a business means 'consent' to selling to EVERYONE, in the case of forced gestationers, they claim having sex means 'consent' to being pregnant.

**If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation. It really is very simple.**



If one does not wish to be pregnant, one need not have sex. It is really very simple.

secularprolife.org said...

In your case, you claim opening a business means 'consent' to selling to
EVERYONE, in the case of forced gestationers, they claim having sex
means 'consent' to being pregnant.


I refer you to public accommodation laws, which every state except Arizona has. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

There is even one Federal public accommodation law: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Enjoy.

secularprolife.org said...

Fiona, I am aware of the laws. I disagree with them. The laws violate the rights of business owners.


I don't know if you're familiar with Johnny Cash, but he used to have a saying: "If you buy the premise, you buy the bit (or conclusion)."


He said this in reference to comedy, but the principle applies to philosophy and legality as well.


I think you and Ladyblack, for whatever reason, want to buy certain 'premises' that I find to be dangerous. Ladyblack buys the premise that it should be acceptable to enslave SOME PEOPLE, specifically men, and not give him an 'out' after ejaculating in a vagina. The problem is, once you accept the premise that SOME people should not have an out AFTER sex, there's little to stand between the conclusion of enslaving women after sex, as well.


Now in your case, you are accepting the premise that once a person engages in action A, it's fine for the law to expect and demand their 'consent' to various subsequent results of your choosing, whether they personally wish those results or not. And if you buy this premise in regards to opening a business, then there's very little afterwards to prevent applying this premise to sexuality as well. If you buy the premise, you have to buy the bit. If you don't, someone else undoubtedly will.

secularprolife.org said...

I suggest that you never open a public accommodation.

secularprolife.org said...

If your suggestion that I not open a public accomodation unless I am willing to 'consent' to things that you have decided for me is valid, why isn't the pro-lifer's suggestion that you not have sex, unless you are willing to consent to gestation, or other things that they have decided for you also not valid?

secularprolife.org said...

You are now being deliberately obtuse, and I am done with this discussion.

secularprolife.org said...

"Second, most pedophiles are male and identify as straight."

Do you have a source for this, please? Also, I curious as to what percentage of pedophiles are ever actually caught raping children.

secularprolife.org said...

I *certainly* agree with you that one's sexuality is *not* a choice (though sexuality might be somewhat fluid for some people; for instance, I myself previously thought that I was 100% heterosexual while I now think that I am probably 99% heterosexual and 1% homosexual). Of course, if (hypothetically) we will ever develop the technology to change people's sexuality, then I would still certainly support gay marriage, oppose discrimination against LGBT people, et cetera.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes--you might be telling the truth here.

secularprolife.org said...

"Slavery is enforced labor without remuneration."

So if one is forced to work but is paid for doing it, then it wouldn't be considered slavery?

Also, serious question: Would you say that laws which ban elective abortions after 12 or 14 weeks (as is the case in some/many European countries) are pro-slavery laws? After all, fetuses aren't viable yet at 12 or 14 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Ok, let's address all the things wrong with your comment. First of all, no that doesn't make you a slave, that makes you an employee when you are expected to work for the benefit of another and are being paid for it. Secondly, let's clear up the nonsense about European "abortion bans." They aren't bans. There are holes in them large enough for anyone to drive a truck through them. All you have to do is claim suicidal depression to get one. Also they are done for the usual maternal and fetal indications. The only exception is Ireland. Those women just leave. STILL abortion rates are much lower because of universal health care, paid maternity leave, etc. Women there can get any contraception they wish, free of charge. Nobody loses her job or becomes bankrupt due to a complicated pregnancy. Do the same thing here, and you will have the same results. Much lower abortion rates.

secularprolife.org said...

I know for a fact that I'm right. Countries that do this enjoy very low abortion rates.

secularprolife.org said...

"Ok, let's address all the things wrong with your comment."

OK.

"First of all, no that doesn't make you a slave, that makes you an employee when you are expected to work for the benefit of another and are being paid for it. "

Even when you don't want to do this job and are prevented from leaving this job?

"Secondly, let's clear up the nonsense about European "abortion bans." They aren't bans. There are holes in them large enough for anyone to drive a truck through them. All you have to do is claim suicidal depression to get one."

And what if these "bans" didn't have exceptions for people who claim suicidal depression, et cetera?

"Also they are done for the usual maternal and fetal indications. The only exception is Ireland. Those women just leave. STILL abortion rates are much lower because of universal health care, paid maternity leave, etc. Women there can get any contraception they wish, free of charge. Nobody loses her job or becomes bankrupt due to a complicated pregnancy. Do the same thing here, and you will have the same results. Much lower abortion rates."

Thanks for this info, and Yes, I agree with you that we should be more like Europe in regards to paid maternity leave, free contraception, et cetera.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't like playing "what if" games. Suicidal ideations are an acceptable reason for abortion, as are any other life-threatening conditions. So are fetal defects acceptable reasons for abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

You appear to be trying to evade answering this question.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, this raises an interesting question: Is a suicidal person qualified to make medical decisions for himself or herself? Wouldn't it be better to try treating this person first before allowing him or her to make medical decisions?

secularprolife.org said...

This is a serious question, for the record.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, as a matter of fact, a suicidal patient IS qualified to make medical decisions for themselves. So long as they are adult, and have not been adjudicated an incompetent person. That's a very high legal bar, kiddo. I was subpoenaed as a caregiver by a mother who was attempting to have her adult son adjudicated incompetent. This man had global brain damage, resulting in massive neurological issues. He was legally blind, with expressive aphasia. He didn't know his own address and phone number. And he was unable to handle money or budgeting. In other words, he required help with almost all activities of daily living, and 24/7 supervision. I told the woman not to subpoena me because nothing I could say would help her. All her witnesses ended up sounding like witnesses for the defense, including the psychologist. She lost the case. Bottom line, the inability to consistently make wise decisions, or the tendency to make unwise decisions does not mean a person is incompetent. You would practically need to be in a coma or PVS to be adjudicated incompetent. Judges are loathe to strip people of their rights to determine for themselves.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 246 of 246   Newer› Newest»